Americans still deserve some privacy

Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, the deputy Assembly Republican leader, introduced a package of bills earlier this summer designed to address growing privacy concerns. Collectively the legislation takes aim at a wide range of issues, including the stiffening of penalties for violating confidentiality of health and taxpayer information; requiring court approval of video camera installations by a public entity; and requiring an individual's consent in obtaining "biometric identifiers" such as a retina scan or DNA.

Handlin even included a formal request that Washington adopt a federal shield law to assist journalists in protecting sources - an important step in maintaining the media's ability to properly scrutinize government actions. Handlin recently added two proposals that would restrict access to motor vehicle computer systems, and would require judicial permission for use of an automated license plate reader by law enforcement.

For all of this, we can only say thank you. While some individual proposals may not stand up to detailed scrutiny, it is a welcome sight to see a state lawmaker trying to reestablish some reasonable privacy standards amid the rush of evolving technology and national security fears that seem to have turned almost any form of government information-gathering into fair game.

The privacy vs. security debate is long enduring, but there is an increasing sense of urgency as the public comes to understand more and more just how much of their lives are being tracked by government. Too often, however, the discussion divides along extremes that sabotage any meaningful action; one camp claims any privacy violation is the vanguard of a massive government conspiracy, the other camp argues that if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about.

The National Security Agency (NSA) scandal has recently cast another spotlight on the issue, and rightly so. What we're told - by the government officials supporting the data collection - is that only the bad guys have to fear the massive tracking of phone records, e-mails and internet activity. That's because the vast majority of the data supposedly sits there useless and ignored as the intelligence folks sift through it all for trends and clues to thwart terrorist attacks.

But are we really comfortable with that claim? Do we really trust that our government, and the vast numbers of people within it, would never use any of that information improperly? That no one will ever fall to a temptation to, for instance, target political enemies?

There are valid security reasons for much of the data collection, but there are also reasonable protocols to be followed to assure that citizen privacy isn't simply tossed aside as irrelevant.

A recurring theme of Handlin's bills is some form of oversight, a check on government powers. We've seen such scrutiny too often sacrificed since 9/11, beginning with some of the excesses of the Patriot Act. Government officials are exploiting citizen fears to push the envelope - or rip it entirely - on just what Americans will accept in giving up their freedoms, and that's a dangerous trend.

Our government can easily know where we are most of the time, what we're doing, what we eat and buy, our interests, habits - really just about everything. We need safeguards to protect against misuse of all of that knowledge, and Handlin's bills, at the very least, reinforce an awareness that such safeguards are currently insufficient. We urge legislators to review the bills closely, with an understanding that, yes, privacy does still matter, and does still have a place within the War on Terror.